SHARE

Email letters, April 21, 2014

Atheist or God-fearing, there is agreement among all reasonable Americans. Individuals must control their behavior, or anarchy results and society collapses. When the origin and extent of moral behavior are the focus, dispute and politics inevitably arise.

Surely that debate is most constructive when it includes a thoughtful consideration of human history.

In his New York Times column of May 18, 2005, Thomas Friedman made a rather wise pronouncement, one difficult to argue with: “… the greatest restraint on human behavior is not laws and police, but culture and religious authority.”

ALAN METCALFEDelta
Sen. Reid shows true colors in Bundy case

All the chatter regarding the recent conflict between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been amusing to watch. I’ll let the courts decide how much money Bundy owes the government, in a court of law.

Aside from any potential legitimate grazing fees, perhaps the two most important points that all Americans should ponder from this episode are as follows. It is truly astonishing that the BLM, by order of whomever is the ultimate responsible government official to make such a decision, was prepared to restrict free speech, intimidate, physically manhandle, taser, or even shoot American civilians who dared to express their disagreement, under the First Amendment, with the aggressive and extreme actions taken by the government against this rancher.

Might it be that many federal department heads have now been emboldened against U.S. civilians, considering President Obama’s and Eric Holder’s actions to deceive, deny, obfuscate and stonewall the American people regarding the facts pertaining to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, NSA scandals, etc.?

And maybe as important is Harry Reid, perhaps the most contemptful, corrupt, dishonest politician in America today, calling the supporters of Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists,” a label that he has been too cowardly and politically correct to even apply to an actual terrorist. Reid also proclaimed that “we are a nation of laws”, and that Bundy must obey the law.

So then, why is it that Reid is fine with millions of illegal aliens being in our country illegally? Or why is Harry not concerned with Obama not enforcing immigration law, or changing his own health care law 30+ times, clear violations of the U.S. Constitution, as well as his pledge to all Americans? I would also wonder if Harry is concerned about Holder telling state attorneys general around the country to selectively enforce laws with which he doesn’t agree?
DON BOYLESGrand Junction
Correct maps to indicate what is truly Colorado land

In light of the actions by the BLM and the dangerous words brayed by Harry Reid – and in response to a liberal journalist — the whole incident requires that our public schools and state offices publish corrected maps that show clearly for [ITAL] everyone [ITAL] to see what lands within our state borders belong to the United States (and these lands ought be so name) and what lands belong to the State – or to the people.

If indeed federal land belongs to all of us, why then does the federal government claim to own 84 percent of Nevada? IF I enter a contract with another who promises to “help” and that person does nothing but take my money – as a fee – and does nothing to “help,” then I have right to fire that person.

I hear Bundy was denied grazing rights by the BLM personnel about the same time he fired them. I understand that he provided the fencing and maintained it and he took care of the water. And yet, the BLM says he owes it? When BLM personnel destroyed his property?

When a “dubious and corrupt” politician (such as Harry Reid) can be protected and excused when he/she violates the laws applied
to everyone else and then turns around and calls American citizens
“domestic Terrorists” and not “patriots,” I understand why Cliven Bundy should have declared those cattle “undocumented” inhabitants. Perhaps then they could have been given amnesty and Clive Bundy rewarded for his acts of love.

I want correct maps to display that shows what is truly Colorado — and what belongs to another within our borders.
ROBERT JAMES BURKHOLDERFruita

Talking point about being better off than six years ago is getting tiresome

I am so tired of the current administration’s talking heads telling me that I am better off than six years ago. I just want to be better off than I was one or two years ago!

L.W. HUNLEYGrand Junction

McCallister’s column might also be viewed as proselytizing

John Borgen was in high dudgeon over a Rick Wagner column and the showing of a “religious” film in a public school (April 18, “Incident in public school was quite simply proselytizing.”)

I would imagine both the alleged “freethinkers” and he are going through the roof over Saturday’s column by Gary McCallister (“Christianity plays big role in modern science”). I found this to be both thought-provoking and interesting.

McCallister’s columns are usually quite humorous and enjoyable. This one is not done in a humorous vein but, in its way, it was just as enjoyable — and quite fitting for Easter weekend.

But, is it “quite simply proselytizing” also?

CREIGHTON BRICKERGrand Junction

Real ‘Wonderland’ stretch is to call Tipton a conservative

It’s quite a stretch for Jim Spehar to accuse Republican candidate David Cox of having a “criminal record” for minor-in-possession-of-alcohol charges from drinking parties in college. Most reasonable people don’t consider youthful folly to be the same as “criminal behavior.”

If Spehar or his children ever went to underage parties, does that make them criminal, as well? Or is that only reserved for Republicans?

Charles Ashby was even bolder in describing Cox as a convicted felon. He corrected that statement later in a small inconspicuous section of the paper called “Getting It Right.”

Spehar enters his own version of “Alice in Wonderland” when he worries over extremists in the GOP.

Many people consider the $17.6 trillion debt our nation has been saddled with (by politicians from both parties) to be a real-life extreme. It averages out to be $55,000 owed by every man, woman and child in our nation. My baby nephew already owed $55,000 on the day he was born. Millions of young people will be forced to bear this burden of taxation without representation.

Our current representative, Scott Tipton, recently bragged about voting for a budget that “slashed” spending. He neglected to mention the “slashing” really only amounted to a reduction in the increased spending they actually passed – an old trick used by D.C. politicians.

This kind of deception is the real “criminal record” to which voters ought to pay closer attention. The real “Wonderland” stretch is to call Tipton a conservative and say that demanding a change of leadership is “going too far.”

Great jobs, Mr. Boyles, and Mr. Burkholder. “Dirty Harry” Reid is not in a position to be spouting about a “nation of laws”. Were that true, there wouldn’t be 12 to 20 million illegal’s in our country. Of course, “laws” is only part of the equation - once passed, they have to be enforced.

By John Borgen - Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Mr. Bricker seems unaware that proselyting in a public school is quite different than an article in a newspaper. McCallister was talking about Christianity and it’s affect on teaching in a public school setting. Was he overtly seeking converts to Christianity or new members for a church? Either in the article or presumably as a teacher? The invitation to a religious program at a church done in the setting of a public school classroom was most definitely proselyting. It was not done as a public service. What was the purpose of Bricker’s letter other than to see his name in print?

By Jerry Sanders - Tuesday, April 22, 2014

What is “proselyting?” One can find it difficult to criticize when they are not on topic. Mr Borgen uses the term more than once. What is it?

By John Borgen - Tuesday, April 22, 2014

For Mr.Sanders, proselytizing is the act of trying to convert someone from one creed, party, belief,etc to another. The church invitation that was offered in a public school to attend a religious program at their church was meant to familiarize attendees with their church and its teachings. It was inappropriate in a public school setting.

By Jerry Sanders - Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Oh you meant proselytizing and not proselyting. I surely know the meaning of proselytizing. My thought, since you stated it so many times that.you were seriously lacking in more than one area.

By John Borgen - Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Sanders, have you ever made a typo? Don’t you have better things to do than being a troll nuisance?